Can I still use a credit card to buy some ammo? OH dang, I'm in trouble now.

Does seem the Constitution is being destroyed.

These are the 22 Democrats, 2 Independents, and 26 Republicans who voted last night to allow warrantless searches of the communications of U.S. citizens. In my opinion none of these people should ever again be considered for the Office of President.
Source: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...18_2_00148.htm


Fetterman (D-PA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Duckworth (D-IL)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hassan (D-NH)
Hickenlooper (D-CO)
Kelly (D-AZ)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Ossoff (D-GA)
Peters (D-MI)
Reed (D-RI)
Rosen (D-NV)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Warner (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)

King (I-ME)
Sinema (I-AZ)

Cassidy (R-LA)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cotton (R-AR)
Crapo (R-ID)
Boozman (R-AR)
Britt (R-AL)
Budd (R-NC)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hyde-Smith (R-MS)
Lankford (R-OK)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Mullin (R-OK)
Ricketts (R-NE)
Risch (R-ID)
Romney (R-UT)
Rounds (R-SD)
Rubio (R-FL)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Wicker (R-MS)
Young (R-IN)

You’re right when you call it a “trawl net.” It’s really very obsessive behavior, literally insisting that you “have to” secretly vacuum-up every shred of communication, “just because you can.” But that flood of information isn’t going to serve any legitimate enforcement purpose. It simply makes citizens vastly more vulnerable because they don’t know how utterly exposed they are. And, you can’t keep a tranche of data like that only in the “right” or intended hands. Also: there is a great deal of difference between “information” and “intelligence.”

The PATRIOT Act “miraculously appeared” in its thousand-page glory mere days after “9/11.” No one can write that fast. Obviously, people had been working on it for a long time. Very obsessed people.

No, they didn't.

"Statement of Purpose: To prohibit warrantless access to the communications and other information of United States persons."

It's a fine point, but choosing to "not prohibit" something is not the same as allowing it.

To expand on the point in post #19: You're not allowed to drive your car at speeds exceeding the speed limit, but there's nothing stopping you from doing it. It's not allowed, but also not prohibited.

The original bill was 342 pages and was introduced to the House on the 2nd of October... 3 weeks after the attacks.

Members don't actually write these things themselves. They have teams of lawyers working on them. Given the nature of this one, it was probably "all hands on deck" to get it done as quickly as possible.
Another conspiracy, eh?

@rkelsen You and I are on a boat at sea and I'm the only one who sees you fall overboard with no chance of self rescue. Do you want me to throw you a lifebuoy, do nothing, or dump a bucket of chum into the water with you? In my view the 50 people I listed above 'chummed' the water.

Well, if you vote Republican, you've no right to complain.

@mjolnir, you're concerned about a small detail in a much bigger picture.

My understanding of the "Fourth Amendment is not for sale Act" can be summed up as follows:
- For the best part of 20 years, people have been uploading every miniscule detail of their lives to the internet.
- As a rich source of current information, all of that data has become commoditised. Anyone can buy it on the open market.
- We want to stop law enforcement from buying it and using it as evidence.

Is that right? Or have I completely misread it?

I don't necessarily see this as a 'party' issue. Biden could have threatened a veto if he wanted tougher provisions to protect 4th Amendment rights. Both parties are in CYA mode and significant numbers of both parties voted to repass the FISA bill with minimal reforms relying on the 3-letter agencies promises of procedural reforms to prevent abuse. No politician wants to be seen as weak on protection should there be another large scale terrorist attack in the States.
It's a balancing act between the 'need for speed' in dealing with threats and individual rights in the Constitution. I don't see it as a 'small detail.'

So how does this tie back to your "chumming the water" comment?
Maybe I shouldn't have called it a "small" detail... But it is just one piece of the puzzle.

That comment, "In my view the 50 people I listed above 'chummed' the water.", included fifty people with near equal numbers of Dems. and Repubs. including 2 Ind. who caucus with the Democrats. I do agree that balancing Constitutional protections against technological innovation is a tough puzzle to solve.

OK, but my question was asking you for an explanation of why you think they 'chummed' the water at that vote on the 19th April?

The reality is that George W. Bush signed away your right to privacy on 26 October 2001. That is the date that your right to privacy died. And it was done in the name of protecting you from terrorism. I remember being forced to take off my belt and shoes in Oslo airport 4 years later, and struggling to put them back on as we ran to the boarding gate... swearing at GWB the whole time.

In other news, Net Neutrality is back: https://www.fcc.gov/net-neutrality

Probably, the only reason you might not find "surveillance" to be "alarming" is simply that you are unaware of how ubiquitous it has now become. In fact, it is now absurd.

Now that people have gained the ability to collect "all this information," they have become obsessed with doing so. And this, oddly enough, can actually lead to blindness. Because you are "so certain" that this is how people are going to interact and behave, you don't look for nor consider any other possibility.

For example, what if someone out there is planning something really nasty, and they are using 1950's style "dead drops" and messages hidden in fake nickels? And maybe they're ... not generating any "electronic message traffic" at all. It can [still ...] be done. There are actually clubs where people who are still interested in such things conduct various "spy competitions" to amuse themselves. (As well as a popular game called, "Spy Club.")

The easier it is to travel down a particular path, the more likely you are to do so. At the exclusion of everything else. But: "your opponent also knows this." Therefore, he likes "primroses."

After you started posting hypotheticals I posted one. 'Chummed' is just a descriptive term I used in conjunction to my hypothetical and is pretty self-explanatory.

GWB, as you call him, could have vetoed the bill just as Biden could have vetoed this iteration. I believe Repubs held the House and Presidency and Dems had the Senate at that time so there is plenty of blame for loss of personal liberties on both sides of the aisle.